If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ok...sounds like all the potential witnesses for defense have pre-paid for trips out of the country. What does that tell us?

The dates of the trial were known, it appears that these people purposely made plans, hoping to be out of the country so they did NOT have to come to testify. They wanted to do it on video tape, more control?

The jurors are NOT allowed to ask questions of the people testifying? Interesting.

The dates of the trial were known, it appears that these people purposely made plans, hoping to be out of the country so they did NOT have to come to testify. They wanted to do it on video tape, more control?

The jurors are NOT allowed to ask questions of the people testifying? Interesting.

Verdict -- Monday sounds good. Let's hope. They could announce and then fill out the jury form during the 3 hour delay for their announcement!! I'm sure they won't, but still.... 3 hours. Chocolate & valium (I wish) for me, then...

JH hasn't always stood up when the jury or the judge enters & exits -- is he really chained to the floor or otherwise chained under his clothing? I could swear that I have heard a rattle of chains from time to time -- is that so? There are 3 armed deputies within 2 -- 6 feet of him... Chains?

All posts, unless attributed, are "just my humble opinion," and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you.

As far as I know JH is harnessed and it goes down his trouser leg and is fastened to the floor. The jury asked if JH could move so they could watch him as the case was tried but the judge said he has to stay where he is.

I don't know if he wears chain restraints when he arrives/leaves court.

Thank you. I have a friend whose daughter just got a job as a public defender, and we were discussing this case, and I was having a hard time explaining this issue.

In layman's terms... I think what's different about CO (compared to the majority of others) is that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove he was NOT insane at the time versus the defense having to prove he was insane at the time. Kinda similar to the issue of guilt vs innocence. The state has to prove he IS guilty and the defense only has to create a reasonable doubt that he's not guilty (because he's presumed innocent) ... so you worded it in a good way... that essentially he's presumed to have been insane at the time and the state has to prove he wasn't. It is quite confusing when you're describing it.

"Justice cannot be for one side alone but must be for both." - Eleanor Roosevelt
✌️